Fujifilm GF 100-200mm F5.6 sample gallery

The Fujifilm GF 100-200mm F5.6 covers a 79-158mm equivalent range when attached to a GFX medium-format camera. It's the longest zoom option available for the GF system, counting both current lenses and those on the roadmap. Coupled with a GFX camera it's not exactly the most portable option, but we endeavored to bring it along on some snowy walks and trips to the waterfront anyhow.

I think the city landscapes in the snow are fabulous, especially since this is Seattle. The child is adorable. I think 55-60 are supposed to show bokeh, seems the lens does that well, at least for me. Thanks for reading.

Been this way for a 100 years. A light meter doesn't know you are taking a white subject, it just wants to maintain an average mid-grey exposure.

It up to the photographer to dial in around +1.0 ev exposure compensation. That's what exposure compensation control is there for. If you are photographing artworks on mostly white paper or install shots against white walls you learn this very quickly.

So nothing to do with the lens or the camera, grey whites are the photographer's lack of applying their knowledge.

The edges have a softness I associate with most image stabilized lenses. Is it because the photographers are lulled into a false sense of security and use too-low shutter speeds (or forget the tripod)? Or some inherent flaw in the design of lenses built to be image stabilized?

@Big, you mean it's a bargain to those of us that have gotten used to the low volume/high prices of MF bodies and lenses. Duncan is absolutely correct. All the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses collect more light on a FF (35mm) sensor. MF just ain't what it used to be.

But the problem is - Fujifilm isn't really Medium Format. Its more like FFplus or Crop-MF.

The difference is just a mere 2/3 stop. For that gain you pay double the price. And then all that comes out from Fujifilm is nothing but slow lenses not suitable for any work besides landscape or studio.

I just can't take the MF offering of Fujifilm really serious. Sorry if I offended some of you.

Duncan with respect, I think it's obvious you haven't got one, when you first pull the files up in your computer, they jump out at you really pop, added to which you can zoom in all you like and everything's tack sharp, it's another world and once you're there no way would you go back. And that's before the 100s with double the res and stabilisation.

Duncan. Oh well, I actually have two of them I like it so much, happily collecting the lenses and looking forward to the 100s in the future. Just as well there’s an option for everyone. I couldn’t agree with you less, I’ve been doing this 35 years and GFX blows everything else out of the water.

Duncan i would have thought it obvious to anyone with a photographic background that medium format cameras perform best on tripod or sturdy monopods looks like you dont actually understand what they are designed to do.

Duncan I can see you are thinking about it but I just think you have it in for gfx for no valid reason is a niche premium product which is incredible value if you want it, I photograph models in studios and the results are stunning, you can zoom in to the head and every eyelash is sharp as a razor blade you just dont get that with full frame, I like canon and the move to mirrorless but they still have the same old inadequate sensors in. I agree over apsc I got a xt3 after all the hype on this site and it's so average should have stuck with full frame there.

People seem to be saying that you can't tell the difference between MF images and others unless you've sunk five figures into an MF camera system. If that's the case, I'll continue to cherish my ignorance. Especially since exactly zero of the people that I will be showing my photos to are MF camera owners, so my audience wouldn't be able to tell the difference either.

Anticipation. Yes that’s all very fine and rationalised, but I’ve spent today reviewing shots of a model in lingerie posing on decking by a summerhouse on a GFX they almost leap off the monitor and you can go from full length and zoom in to headshot and every hair is tack sharp with colours and tones and detail I know I wouldn’t see in full frame. If I’ve messed the histogram theses so much dynamic range you make a couple of quick adjustments and it’s all there you would never know. You can tell yourself you don’t need it but I dumped canon and Leica systems for GFX and 100% did the right thing I get everything I’ve ever hoped for out of the files. I did all this in the film days a 35mm camera couldn’t touch a 6x7 or even 6x4.5 the principle is still the same, although now Fuji has done it in a camera same size as a pro dslr. Wow!

Why should I believe someone who has $20,000+ worth of confirmation bias behind them (assuming you actually own and use this system ratherthan just pretending to online, but I'm feeling generous today) as opposed to the best independent review team on the planet, not to mention my very own eyeballs?

Anticipation you've always been pretty reasonable in your posts sorry you're so aggressive on this one. I work hard bought one, liked it so much I got rid of my remaining canon ff kit to buy another body. The results are everything I've ever wanted. Wouldn't have got the other body if I didn't think that would I? You're in danger of falling in the group that look a bit sour because they cant afford one. I couldn't care less what dpr reviewers think, they are just a guide. They said the XT3 was a great camera I disagree I'm sorry I listened to them

I honestly think we need a rule on dpr that unless you understand exactly what medium format is people dont comment. It's got nothing to do with full frame or apsc, all the lens designs costs and expectations are on another level.

There is one very simple reason: economies of scale. This is the same for every other niche product. Basically if you just make a few of them upfront R&D cost need to be distributed over fewer lenses and manufacturing and tooling also gets more expensive.

With the rising number of GFX owners, MF lenses could get cheaper in the future

Well, first of all, let's be honest, the 44x33 isn't really Medium Format. It is a FF+. And I would rather have a 70-200F4 on FF, than this. You are not going to have the real Medium Format experience with 44x33, except for the expenses. It's like a Ferrari bicycle - costs like half the Ferrari, but they have nothing in common.

I agree; it has been almost 30 years since the digital age started and the 35mm film era ended. Time to stop looking backward and move on to a cleaner way to describe lenses. Think about it, using crop factors and converting from 35mm takes a lot of mental gymnastics. By contrast field of view is a simple concept that's understandable by anyone who has looked through a telescope in their life. Plus it will put an end to the ceaseless bickering in the forums.

I disagree. 35mm is a pretty nice standard. Any photographer working in the last 50 years knows the 35mm standards better than FOV.

Those slowpokes in the MFT forum who keep talking up the "identical apertures, identical light" nonsense should be left to their own devices (advice to self). Nothing or nobody can save them at this point: spending more money for less lens with no real weight advantage any more in a hopelessly small sensor size.

No way, leica started with 35mm in the 1920s even though I no longer shoot full frame it's absolutely the accepted point of reference and will be till past me being dead in a box. If they did do field of view I would also want the 35mm equivalent as well!

Camera makers do let you know the fov in the specs, for ff and cropped sometimes, like Nikon does. 35mm hasn't been a standard until the digital age. The only thing missing is dof info and I'd argue it's pretty moot unless you're super keen on knowing it; and once you do you no longer care. All those people shooting medium format with film didn't give a hoot about 35mm

I'm not talking about stupid camera companies. But for god sake, this mm nonsense is just too much and plain stupid. "oh no, this is a 50mm but it's acts like bla bla bla on a full frame. FOV is universal. Camera companies do their thing and sites of presumably rational people, translate the freaking thing to FOV. How hard is it? They automatically do that when they are talking about fisheye lens. Oh, this magical, especial lens, has 180 degree FOV. "The others don't have FOV, just this one".

I'm not saying you don't have to do any math, I'm saying that you can do a math that makes sense and has everything to do with perspective of what you're shooting. FOV is the only way to know what a lens can cover, everything else is guess.

Besides, the math would only be necessary for F stop for light and background blur. If 24mm has the same FOV of a 16 on APS-C and 12mm on M43. Release all of them with FOV instead of mm. If you adapt to another camera the mm is irrelevant because you know the FOV. This should not be this hard.

This is eq to FF 79-158mm F4.48 zoom. FF 70-200mm F4.0 zoom lenses not only wider and longer in FL but also a bit faster on equivalence. and much cheaper. Then there is no equivalent MF zoom for FF 70-200/2.8.

What totally different? FF cameras are the most versatile including landscape and studio. I am sure MF is better but not significantly, mainly in resolution. However top FF sensors basically match in DR, and have much more lens choices including special lenses for specific areas of landscape for example, such as Zeiss especially Loxia line are great for color rendering and sunstar that are also part of landscape so not just resolution. Then how about UWA lenses, TS-E lenses etc.

Just to elaborate on my comment about the different formats. A FF camera provides a fantastic balance of quality and versatility. Nobody who needs that versatility would even consider a MF camera. A MF camera is bulky and slow due to the large sensor and thus severely limited in its use. It's only redeeming quality is that under ideal circumstances it should provide higher quality images than FF. So why compare the two formats at all, if it is meant for totally different uses/users?

And another thought: A while ago someone at DPR (I guess Rishi would be the prime suspect) realized that due to slower sensor development for medium format, full frame delivers almost as much quality. Since then DPR's been flogging that horse almost to death. Of course things will change when better MF sensors become available. I hope DPR will then do the decent thing and apologize to all those who wanted to go MF because of the high quality, but instead went FF because "it's as good as MF".

Sure Fuji is working on 100mp MF Sony sensor. That appears not fundamental different but just sqeeze double amount of pixels with slight improvements.

But Sony now also working on 60mp FF sensor that based on newer latest technology, also as Nikon moved to base ISO 64, 16bit ADC so likely noticeable better DR at base ISO than current A7r III at ISO 100 or D850 at ISO 64 that basically tied, virtually the same as current GFX-50s.

I am sure future 100mp Fuji MF still has higher resolution than future 60mp Sony or Nikon FF cameras. But resolution is not everything and with diminishing return. DR and lens choices and other versatility are still far more important per my perspective.

“Dpreview.com is by far the most authoritative source anywhere for straight talk about new digital cameras,” said Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon.com. “We at Amazon.com have been their FANS for a long time, and we extend a big welcome to the dpreview.com team.”

When using a Bronica ETR-S 645 format film camera system (which I have owned since the early 80's) , the longer lenses are generally used for portraits. I suspect that most people are not out walking around with a MF camera and a long lens, doing street photography.

Portraits which allow us to see detail of hair and eyes, would likely be a better option to assist people who may be considering this lens and format combination, (self included).

@Tom-A - If they made one it would be prohibitively expensive. The 6x7 positives have almost 5 times the surface area of a 35mm(FF) negative. I have seen scans from it as high as 180mpx, but typically they usually go to 120pmx.

This lens is about 1kg and costs less than $2000. Sounds surprisingly reasonable to me. Some MF lenses have seemed overpriced to me. This one sounds okay.

I'll stick to my Canon DSLR as the small medium format doesn't seem a big enough upgrade to give up compatibility and a huge lens pool. I'm an avid observer though of what Fuji and other photographers do with the format over time (and an active Fuji X shooter).

The Leica Q2 is a fixed-lens, full-frame camera sporting a new 47.3MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and replaces the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116), launched in 2015.

Fujifilm's GFX 50R takes the image quality from the existing 50S model and wraps it in a new body with new controls and a lower price of entry. Is that enough to tempt you to pick one up for yourself? Find out how the GFX 50R performs in our full review.

The Mavic Air hits the sweet spot for many drone users, combining compact size with high performance and good image quality. Find out what makes it so useful, and why it might just be the best travel-friendly drone on the market today.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Montana judge Dana L. Christensen has ruled the Republican National Committee did not infringe upon the copyright of photographer Erika Peterman after they took a photo from a Democratic candidate's Facebook page without permission and altered it to use in a derogatory promotional mailer.

Leica recently announced the Q2, a digital rangefinder with a fixed 28mm F1.7 lens. It's a heck of a lot of fun to shoot with, but is it right for you? Based on our time with the camera, and its specifications, we've examined how well-suited it is for common photography use-cases.

Now that our Panasonic Lumix S1R has final firmware, we couldn't wait to get out shooting with it - and we also tried the high-res mode, which combines files to get 187 megapixel images. Because sometimes, 47 megapixels just isn't enough.

Drones can be useful tools in urban areas, where they're utilized for everything from news reporting to building inspections, but flying in these areas requires careful preparation. Here's what you need to know to do so safely.